hughes, with teams who overlapped in pools of recruits, i used to only sign players i scouted, and never scouted the same state with two schools. which basically means i only recruited from a state with 1 school. when i was at UK and texas a&m, they were both high end programs, and i often would have to decide which school to scout with, for those states in between (like arkansas). this was a clear disadvantage. also, there was a time i naturally wanted to battle the same school for two guys, and i had to avoid that because i felt the other guy would feel i was intentionally double teaming him. so to me, having 2 teams in a world has ALWAYS been a clear disadvantage, in my mind, because of the steps i took to ensure i didnt gain an advantage. i dont know all coaches take it so far, but i do think most coaches make the effort to avoid situations like you mentioned.

when i had SIUE and UK just a couple hundred miles apart (A+ d2 and A+ d1), i would scout the same stuff all the time. they dont really overlap - i would search d1 with both, but just started a couple pages down with SIUE and didnt go too far with UK. by the time i got down in the 500s (overall) i was just skimming so fast with UK for a super growth player that i never would make connections like, oh that guy is pretty good, now i know his name and everything about him for my d2 team! when you are recruiting for a team, seeing hundreds of recruits, i find you remember very little about specific guys other than the few you are really interested in. i have a pretty good memory but not an eidetic memory. i regularly see guys on my d1 teams, when recruiting, where its like that guy would be good for d2, but its a flash, on to the next guy.

there is a small concern there - my approach was to recruit d2 first, and then d1, although that wasn't always the case. but generally, id make the effort to space those initial recruiting efforts out. by the time you get to the first cycle for d1, for a+ d1 at least, you are basically done going through guys. so id space out those out and would have no chance of remembering some random tidbit about a player i didnt even care about for that team. in the rare case i did both teams together - it was because i was in a hurry - blazing through them - not even really getting a chance to look for diamonds in the rough for my d1 team. my experience was there was virtually no advantage. on a couple occasions id notice a guy and go wow, that guy is really good for d2, and would recall that incident when i noticed the same guy on my d2 list. but never did something like that influence my decision to scout certain states. if i did have to recruit back to back, then i always did d2 first, so i would have already made my initial scouting decisions. now of course i might scout more later but after that time passes, theres no way im remembering that i saw a good d2 guy on my d1 team for .5 seconds as i skimmed through the bottom 200 recruits in my recruit search...

i am a little torn on the whole thing, because at one point, i spent a **** ton of time per team. then, i feel like i was collecting too much information, mostly, about what other teams were doing. in my prime, i could not morally maintain a d1 team on the east coast and another on the west - i was too in tune with what was going on, it would have been impossible not to have that information bleed over. at one point, i specifically dropped a west coast team because i was in a minor resurgence, and even though UK was probably 2000+ miles away, i got my mid major in the elite 8 and was going to start recruiting higher end players, and even though i cut my play time by a factor of 10, i was recruiting super intensely. so i dropped the team. but with the way ive played lately, i go so fast, focus so little, there is no issue at all, in my opinion. i largely trust other coaches to behave similarly. if, with your style of play, you find yourself in fairly regular conflicts, where you have to decide how to handle an interaction between the teams, then you should drop one or move one or whatever. if you find there is really no interaction, maybe every 6 months an extremely minor consideration comes up or something, then you keep them. i guess i cant expect you to trust other coaches like i do - and as ive said, id never allow multiple teams in a division in my version of the game, if i had one - but in this game, with things the way they are, and all the valid reasons coaches have for picking up multiple teams, combined with the population issues, it seems you have to give people the benefit of the doubt. especially when they had their teams while it was still legal to do so.

Posted by Trentonjoe on 7/31/2013 11:05:00 AM (view original):Your putting words in my mouth. I think it is a significant advantage and I think it is one that people ignore.

What it boils down to me is why do you need/want two teams in the same world as opposed to two different worlds. The only answers I can think of are:

1. It's easier to commit time to recruiting
2. You want to cheat
3. You have teams in every world and want more teams
4. You have always done it that way and want to continue that

There just aren't many #3, I would like to think there aren't many #2s so that leaves #4's and #1. Which then leads to "why did the #4's pick up a 2nd team"? I guess I understand the "I love my team and don't want to lose it but also want to move up" argument. I just think that is kinda silly but I think I am in the minority on that one.

I don't think I answered your question but it wasn't really a fair assessment of my point so that's the best I can do.

i hope you just ignore colonels and dont let his bullcrap stop you from engaging with others! always good to hear the other side of the coin.

my comment is on #3, its not just about a team in every world - what if you prefer 1/day or 2/day? then its a team in every 1/day world, which is 7, or every 2/day world, which is 3. that is definitely more common than over 10 teams! but you also have to consider the historical aspect. there used to be ONE 2/day world. i got addicted to this game fast, and hard, in tark - and i couldnt stand playing in rupp, where my cousin played, as much as i wanted to join him. so i picked up tark teams. by the time knight and phelan came out, i had established myself in all divisions in tark. now, with resumes and programs i spent years building, cant you see why i wouldnt just be like hey, for the hell of it, why not drop my beloved tark teams and pick up knight and phelan teams!!

i think you are falling in the newer coach trap here, and not considering the history. for new coaches, given the 1 team/world rule, its really not a big deal to follow it. for existing coaches, totally entrenched in a single world, it really is a big deal. by the time knight came out, i had already one of the greatest programs ever in SIUE, in one of the greatest and most fun conferences of all time, and meanwhile was coaching my dream school UK, 200 miles away. if you cant appreciate why i wouldnt want to give up either team in that situation, im not sure what to tell you!

and again, ill ask you, if you really think the reason most people picked up these multiple teams is to cheat - then i ask again - why the heck did so many coaches have multiple teams in a world before you could share scouting data???

Posted by Trentonjoe on 7/31/2013 11:05:00 AM (view original):Your putting words in my mouth. I think it is a significant advantage and I think it is one that people ignore.

What it boils down to me is why do you need/want two teams in the same world as opposed to two different worlds. The only answers I can think of are:

1. It's easier to commit time to recruiting
2. You want to cheat
3. You have teams in every world and want more teams
4. You have always done it that way and want to continue that

There just aren't many #3, I would like to think there aren't many #2s so that leaves #4's and #1. Which then leads to "why did the #4's pick up a 2nd team"? I guess I understand the "I love my team and don't want to lose it but also want to move up" argument. I just think that is kinda silly but I think I am in the minority on that one.

I don't think I answered your question but it wasn't really a fair assessment of my point so that's the best I can do.

Fair enough, and we can definitely agree that we're on different sides of this. My contention is that (assuming no shenanigans) there is no advantage gained my my DI team vs. your DI team because I'd also be recruiting for a DII team, or that my DII team gains an advantage vs. another DII team because I'm also recruiting for a DI team. You still have to scout all potential recruits for both teams, you still have to scout other teams and try to anticipate their actions, you have to follow along to developments as recruiting progresses and assess opportunities and threats, etc. The time spent on recruiting stays the same, it is all spent during the same 5 day period, and not multiple ones.

So I'd say that while yes, it provides one coach added convenience, it does not provide teams any advantages.

1. Many guys have teams in the same division .. for example, 2 division 1 teams. How does that impact your analysis of advantages for a coach with 2 teams.

If you had Div-2 team in Colorado and a Div-1 team in North Carolina ... you scouted Virginia and West Virginia with the Div-I team and you are running out of money on your Div-2 team. You know that Player A in West Virginia (which you scouted from your Div-1 NC team) would be a good drop down for you on your Div-2 as you see his FSS from your Division-1 team. Do you then decide to buy FSS from WV from your Div-2 Colorado team? Did you gain an advantage on Player A in that case? I say that you did gain an advantage if you chose to scout WV based on knowing that Player A was good based on the Div-1 FSS info.

How do you make sure not to get an advantage like that ... maybe by never scouting the same states with both teams in FSS.

Maybe by never recruiting from the same state with both teams?

While the scenario you described is certainly a possibility, I think you're also blowing the it out of proportion, simply because if there were a player like that, who was that good, he'd have been snatched up by one of the local teams anyway. Maybe you, on rare occasions, have someone like that slip through the cracks, but I certainly wouldn't want to base my recruiting strategy on it happening on a regular basis. Coaches today, who are local too the kid, are too good to let a player like you're describing get away. Yes, I acknowledge that it's a possibility, but I highly unlikely one.

A better question would be, as BillyG has asked numerous times, if coaches were playing two teams primarily to use one to cheat for the other, then how do you explain those coaches who had both teams long before the advent of FSS, when there WASN'T anything called potential in the game, when there wasn't a need to scout players?

Posted by Trentonjoe on 7/31/2013 11:05:00 AM (view original):Your putting words in my mouth. I think it is a significant advantage and I think it is one that people ignore.

What it boils down to me is why do you need/want two teams in the same world as opposed to two different worlds. The only answers I can think of are:

1. It's easier to commit time to recruiting
2. You want to cheat
3. You have teams in every world and want more teams
4. You have always done it that way and want to continue that

There just aren't many #3, I would like to think there aren't many #2s so that leaves #4's and #1. Which then leads to "why did the #4's pick up a 2nd team"? I guess I understand the "I love my team and don't want to lose it but also want to move up" argument. I just think that is kinda silly but I think I am in the minority on that one.

I don't think I answered your question but it wasn't really a fair assessment of my point so that's the best I can do.

Fair enough, and we can definitely agree that we're on different sides of this. My contention is that (assuming no shenanigans) there is no advantage gained my my DI team vs. your DI team because I'd also be recruiting for a DII team, or that my DII team gains an advantage vs. another DII team because I'm also recruiting for a DI team. You still have to scout all potential recruits for both teams, you still have to scout other teams and try to anticipate their actions, you have to follow along to developments as recruiting progresses and assess opportunities and threats, etc. The time spent on recruiting stays the same, it is all spent during the same 5 day period, and not multiple ones.

So I'd say that while yes, it provides one coach added convenience, it does not provide teams any advantages.

1. Many guys have teams in the same division .. for example, 2 division 1 teams. How does that impact your analysis of advantages for a coach with 2 teams.

If you had Div-2 team in Colorado and a Div-1 team in North Carolina ... you scouted Virginia and West Virginia with the Div-I team and you are running out of money on your Div-2 team. You know that Player A in West Virginia (which you scouted from your Div-1 NC team) would be a good drop down for you on your Div-2 as you see his FSS from your Division-1 team. Do you then decide to buy FSS from WV from your Div-2 Colorado team? Did you gain an advantage on Player A in that case? I say that you did gain an advantage if you chose to scout WV based on knowing that Player A was good based on the Div-1 FSS info.

How do you make sure not to get an advantage like that ... maybe by never scouting the same states with both teams in FSS.

Maybe by never recruiting from the same state with both teams?

While the scenario you described is certainly a possibility, I think you're also blowing the it out of proportion, simply because if there were a player like that, who was that good, he'd have been snatched up by one of the local teams anyway. Maybe you, on rare occasions, have someone like that slip through the cracks, but I certainly wouldn't want to base my recruiting strategy on it happening on a regular basis. Coaches today, who are local too the kid, are too good to let a player like you're describing get away. Yes, I acknowledge that it's a possibility, but I highly unlikely one.

A better question would be, as BillyG has asked numerous times, if coaches were playing two teams primarily to use one to cheat for the other, then how do you explain those coaches who had both teams long before the advent of FSS, when there WASN'T anything called potential in the game, when there wasn't a need to scout players?

What I would say is this. If you would consider it okay for two teams who had two individual coaches to share with each other the exact same information during recruiting that a coach with two teams has then it is fine to have multiple teams in a world.

But if you would balk at any of that information being shared then it is not OK.

What kind of information am I talking about. An exact list of who each is recruiting. Exactly how much money they have. Exactly how much they spend each turn. FSS data for battles each team is in states where the other has that info. The list goes on.

If 2 separate coaches can not share that data between themselves then we shouldn't allow it to be shared between 2 teams with the same coach.

I am not saying that the coaches took the teams initially to cheat, just that the information they get (whether they use it or not) would be considered collusion if they were 2 coaches. And that if it were considered collusive, it would also be considered advantageous. And if it is advantageous then it should not be allowed.

My position is that they can not help but to gain a benefit from the information even if they are trying not to gain it. And because of this it should not be allowed.

An example... I was in a battle with a team for RecruitA this last cycle. That team was in a battle with another team for a different recruit in a state where I did not have FSS. I wanted to know if he was winning or losing that battle but I didn't want to spend the cash to scout that state (as I was in division 2 and did not have the cash to chance that I might run out). If I had a 2nd team in that world who had already scouted that state.. No problem, just click on that recruit and I know who is winning that battle.

Example 2.. I am battling UCLA for an international recruit from Turkey using my Mississippi State team. Let's say I also have California in that world. I know if I am winning or losing that battle against UCLA and can use that info to battle with Cal against UCLA. I can know how much UCLA is spending in that Turkey battle. Is that an advantage?

How many times do those kind of advantages come up? Is that fair to the coaches who don't have two teams?

hughes, you make a good point. it WOULD be collusion for two different coaches to share that information. thats the primary reason i personally would not allow 2 teams/division. even before FSS, the same issue was raised, and people generally agreed that yeah, there is some information there, but because the 2 teams cant ever recruit against 1 guy, the implications are limited (by the way, without a doubt, the example you used is cheating, and virtually everyone agrees - there was always the understanding that multiple teams must be used responsibly, and the most prime example is to never battle the same guy with both schools). the general consensus was that its more important for people to have fun, and to have full worlds. the reality is, thats a personal preference. there is no right or wrong answer there. as long as admin would transition our teams in a reasonable manner, i would have been all for a restriction to 1 team/division, because there is a clear reason to do so.

using the 1000 mile rule as a hack is fairly arbitrary and i honestly think, even though less people are directly affected, it would have went over much better if he just made the rule 1 team/division or maybe 1 team/world (which is a different argument - non overlapping teams in terms of fields of recruits don't have the same issues as two teams in the same division). but the reality is no matter what rule he picked, if he just announced it and did nothing to help it along, it would have been a big problem. if hes not willing to help the change along, he never should have made it in the first place, that is just irresponsible.

gillispie, I would argue that he is helping it along .. what I mean is this:

1. He said .. If you have 2 teams within 1000 miles, you should self report and they might work out something that helps you. (If one is at Texas they might be able to change coaches with Stanford ... if both guys agree, etc.)

2. If it is reported that a person has 2 teams within 1000 miles, they take action. They do not actively spend a bunch of time scanning and trying to find people, but it is a violation of the fairplay guidelines. They also do not read all the site mail looking for collusion between two coaches during recruiting. As for all fairplay guidelines, they wait for someone to report the violation and then they act. Have they not taken some kind of action on every reported violation?

3. If it is obvious that a violation has occurred or if they see it while doing something else, they also take action. Again, they are not writing programs to look for this and spending a huge amount of time on it ... but if they know about it, they take action.

=====

One can argue that 1000 miles is an arbitrary rule, and I agree that personally one of the other options would be better (one team per division max or one team per world max) ... this rule was created as compromise to help people keep their teams.

One can also argue that since they have created the rule and that now everyone (and their mother) knows about it ... failure to self report (whether you agree with the rule or not) is now a violation of the fair play guidelines. One can also argue that purposely violating the fair play guide lines is cheating.

As to not knowing about the rule ... any time one adds a new season to any existing team, they are shown something that says:

By clicking "Sign Up", you indicate that you agree to the WhatIfSports Terms of Use.

The Terms Of Use link goes to the Fair Play Guidelines.

You have to click "sign up" to add seasons ... you therefore agree to the fair play guidelines.

If you agree to the guidelines, then purposefully do not self report when you know you are in violation, then what does that make you?

Valid points Hughes, but in your honest opinion, how many people do think *actually* take the time to read the Fair Play Guidelines? I would suspect that it is a relatively low number. I'll admit that I never bothered to read them for about the first seven years I played this game and I would guess that I'm not in the minority. Not saying it's an excuse, just that most coaches would probably not bother to read them.

The Dynasty games in WifS are like poker. The more knowledge you have the bigger advantage you have, specifically in recruiting. By having multiple teams in a world you now have multiple sources of information and an advantage over any owner that has fewer teams than you. Just like if you could play two hands in poker you start to increase your statistical chance of guessing right by eliminating outs.

You can draw a line in the sand that you are not using the information in malice to make yourself feel better, but in the end you have recieved extra information other owners are not privy to. IMO that is unfair, and not the way this game was designed to be played.

As for the orginal situation in this thread:

It is pretty clear this guy is running both team, despite what he said in some ticket to support. The rules were put in place 1,000 miles as crow flies, which he is in violation.

It was lost in all this aftermath discussion, but I'm pretty disappointed seble never came back here to answer the simple question posed by multiple people: why are those CC posts not "clear evidence" showing the same person is controlling both teams? It's a very simple question.

If all someone has to do is say "oh it's my son's team" as a get out of jail free card, then WTF do we expect to accomplish with this dumb rule? We've plainly announced exactly how to get around it, for anyone who wasn't already being devious about it.

Posted by gillispie1 on 8/2/2013 1:28:00 PM (view original):If you have multiple personalities that are not aware of eachother, can you coach multiple teams as long as you only have one per personality?

I'm wondering whether WIS could think outside the box a little here. What if ...those magic words....WIS said that if you have two teams in a world within 1000 miles you MUST disclose it but that they will override the jobs logic to let you get the same school in a DIFFERENT world. If the same school is not available, they will give you a choice of various comparable schools in another world.

If you have two teams within 1000 miles (one person or someone with substantial control - like a son who often asks dad to run the team or vice versa) and you dont disclose it and fix it, then upon discovery you will lose the higher ranked team.

The key to me would be to swap folks into a different world to let them continue at the given school - or perhaps a school that is about as attractive.